Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 63

 1                           Tuesday, 22 February 2011

 2                           [Pre-Trial Conference]

 3                           [Open session]

 4                           [The accused entered court]

 5                           --- Upon commencing at 9.01 a.m.

 6             JUDGE KWON:  Good morning, everyone.

 7             Would the Registrar please call the case.

 8             THE REGISTRAR:  Good morning, Your Honours.

 9             This is case number IT-03-67-R77.3, the Prosecutor versus

10     Vojislav Seselj.

11             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.  Could I have the appearances.

12             Before that, Mr. Seselj, I wanted to make sure that you are

13     following the proceedings in the language you understand.  Do you receive

14     the interpretation into your own language?

15             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I can follow the proceedings only

16     in the Serbian language.  Right now I am receiving interpretation into

17     Serbian.

18             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you, Mr. Seselj.

19             Then can I have the appearances.

20             Mr. MacFarlane.

21             MR. MacFARLANE:  Thank you, Your Honours.  My name is

22     Bruce MacFarlane.  I'm an attorney from Canada and have been appointed as

23     the amicus curiae Prosecutor in these proceedings.  To my right is

24     Ms. Lori Ann Wanlin, who is with me this morning and has been with me

25     throughout the proceedings.  She is also a member of the Canadian bar.

Page 64

 1             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you, Mr. MacFarlane.

 2             Welcome, Ms. Wanlin.

 3             Mr. Seselj, if you could introduce yourself for the record.

 4             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Dr. Vojislav Seselj, university

 5     Professor and the greatest enemy of The Hague Tribunal.

 6             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you, Mr. Seselj.

 7             As the Chamber indicated in its Scheduling Order of

 8     28th January, 2011, the trial in these proceedings will start today.

 9     However, before we start, there are a few matters that we need to deal

10     with in the Pre-Trial Conference.

11             First, I'd like to deal with the amicus Prosecutor's oral request

12     for right of audience of Ms. Lori Ann Wanlin.  And during the Status

13     Conference held on 14th December last year, the amicus Prosecutor

14     requested that his legal assistant, Ms. Wanlin, be granted a limited

15     right of audience in these proceedings in that she would be allowed to

16     participate in the presentation of evidence, cross-examination, and

17     representation or argument under his supervision.  The accused opposed

18     this request.  On 16th February, 2011, the Chamber informally notified

19     the parties that the amicus Prosecutor's request was granted to the

20     extent, however, that this decision would not have any financial

21     implication for the Registry.  We hereby reiterate that position.

22             Next, the Chamber wishes to deal with the amicus Prosecutor's bar

23     table motion.  On 17th January this year, the amicus curiae Prosecutor

24     filed the confidential Prosecutor motion for admission of evidence from

25     the bar table in which the amicus Prosecutor seeks the admission of

Page 65

 1     72 exhibits which can be grouped into the following four categories:

 2     First, documents forming part of the official court record in the cases

 3     case number IT-03-67-T, IT-03-67-R77.2, and IT-0367-R77.3; secondly,

 4     evidence related to the book which is the subject of these proceedings;

 5     thirdly, 13 procès-verbal; and finally, fourthly, a series of screen

 6     shots showing the accused's website.

 7             Mr. Seselj did not file a response within the dead-line set forth

 8     in Rules 126 bis of the Tribunal's rules, which expired on

 9     10th of February.  Having reviewed the material proposed for admission,

10     the Chamber is of the view that it is relevant and of probative value and

11     thus satisfy the requirements of Rule 89(C), and therefore the Chamber

12     will admit it into evidence.

13             The Chamber requests that Registry assign the appropriate exhibit

14     numbers.

15             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have an objection, Mr. Kwon.

16             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, Mr. Seselj.

17             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Of course, I am not, I am not

18     opposed to having these documents admitted into evidence.  However, in

19     the last request made by Mr. MacFarlane, what has presented are excerpts

20     from my Internet website and even the front page of my latest book.  I

21     think that that is improper; namely, that the amicus Prosecutor had to

22     obtain the original of the book and that that would have been

23     conscientious on his part.

24             Since he did not obtain the book and since you have just admitted

25     it into evidence, I am offering a copy of that book to the Trial Chamber,

Page 66

 1     and to Mr. MacFarlane and his associate another copy, and then the entire

 2     book can be admitted into evidence.  As for Mr. MacFarlane and his

 3     associate, perhaps I can write a dedication for them during the break

 4     because the title of the book contains his name.  So could you please

 5     instruct the usher to take these two copies, along with my proposal to

 6     have this admitted into evidence, so that it is a serious piece of

 7     evidence, not so unserious [as interpreted] as presented by

 8     Mr. MacFarlane.  And I have two copies for the prosecuting side.

 9             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you, Mr. Seselj.  We'll see whether we need to

10     admit the original book, and it is always welcome for the parties to

11     co-operate with each other on a voluntary basis.

12             Next we are going to deal with the amicus Prosecutor's motion

13     dated 21st of February entitled, "Original Motion to Amend the

14     Rule 65 ter E 3 Exhibit List."  Here, my understanding is that the amicus

15     Prosecutor seeks to add documents related to the accused's recent

16     publication of confidential information, documents that reflect a pattern

17     of changing service providers and website registrants, and the English

18     translation of excerpts from documents already on the original 65 ter

19     exhibit list.

20             Mr. MacFarlane, I take it that the accused hasn't received the

21     B/C/S translation of this motion, so the thing may be that the accused is

22     not in the position to respond to this.  But having said that, on a

23     separate note, could you expand on the reason why we have to -- we

24     need --

25             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have received that, Mr. Kwon.  I

Page 67

 1     have received that, as far as I can remember, and I can respond.

 2             JUDGE KWON:  In your language and you can respond?

 3             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] In the most beautiful Serbian

 4     language, Mr. Kwon.  It's already been two years now that the Registry of

 5     The Hague Tribunal has been trying to do away with my Internet website by

 6     sending instructions to these distributors of the Internet in Sweden,

 7     Germany, Serbia, and they haven't succeeded in doing that throughout

 8     those two years.  They succeeded in the beginning of February this year;

 9     however, six hours later, my website appeared elsewhere.  It proved to be

10     indestructible.

11             Secondly, at my proposal, the appropriate authorities of the Serb

12     Radical Party appointed my oldest son, Nikola Seselj, to be editor of my

13     website, since in that case I am quite sure that he is not going to

14     relent to any kind of pressure and that I'm going to be the main creator

15     of the website and that nobody is going to intimidate him in order to

16     remove anything from my website.  What I decide once and for all to have

17     on my website remains there.  Once and for all.  And no one can do away

18     with that.  You can find a new distribute yet again.  The one where my

19     website is now, perhaps you can force them to do away with my website.

20     I'm going to find another one and yet another and so on and so forth.

21     And if I do not manage to do that, then I'm going to address my great

22     friend, the great leader of the Korean people, Kim Jong-il to

23     re-establish my website.  And no one can force him to relent to any kind

24     of pressure exerted by The Hague Tribunal.  So my website will not be

25     destroyed.  Then there's my friend Hugo Chavez, then there's my friend

Page 68

 1     Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.  I have friends throughout the world and I will find

 2     friends throughout the world who are going to take good care of my

 3     website and will not allow you to do away with it.

 4             JUDGE KWON:  So, in a nutshell, you are not opposed to that

 5     motion?

 6             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I've already said that to you

 7     in my last motion.  As far as I can remember, Mr. MacFarlane provided a

 8     photograph of the cover page of the book taken from the website.

 9     However, I am providing additional information to you, that I have made

10     sure that no one can destroy my website.  You can kill me, but you cannot

11     destroy my website.  It has become indestructible.

12             JUDGE KWON:  However, Mr. MacFarlane, the Chamber is of the view

13     that it would in the interest of justice and the judicial economy if we

14     limit the scope or the focus of this trial to -- on the publication of

15     his three books, on books revealing the identities of the protected

16     11 witnesses, and deferring all the other issue, i.e., the -- whether he

17     should comply with the Court Order to remove some certain confidential

18     material from his website, to a certain and later stage, given that there

19     are several pending matters before the Chamber in relation to those

20     matters.  So what do you think about that approach?

21             MR. MacFARLANE:  Perhaps I could respond by outlining what

22     animated me to proceed in this fashion and then the Chamber can consider

23     that.

24             In the Chamber's decision of the 2nd of December --

25             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, we do remember.  In our decision to amend the

Page 69

 1     indictment, we said at the end that the amicus curiae may consider such

 2     material as the aggravating circumstances.

 3             MR. MacFARLANE:  Yes, and perhaps even more so that, to use the

 4     words of the Chamber, considering that for the purposes of the indictment

 5     the support of the book, namely whether it was available in hard copy or

 6     in electronic format or both, is immaterial to the central issues as

 7     whether or not the witness's identities are revealed in the said book.

 8     And so it struck me that the format was irrelevant.  The question was

 9     whether or not the 11 witnesses were identified improperly, or any number

10     of the 11 witnesses.  And this most recent book that emerged in the last

11     few weeks, it seemed to be compounded, the situation, and formed a part

12     of an overall transaction that has lasted for quite some time.  And that

13     for the purposes of judicial economy, to collapse everything into one

14     proceeding, because it all related to the same witnesses, made sense to

15     me.  And that was in essence what animated me to seek to include it as a

16     compounding of the contempt and as a continuation.

17             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you, Mr. MacFarlane.

18                           [Trial Chamber confers]

19             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May I say something else before you

20     make a decision.  Judges, the amicus curiae would have to bear in mind

21     some certain facts.  Elementary facts.  He has to appear in court in a

22     serious fashion.  He cannot say that this book was published a few days

23     ago.  He has to know the exact date when the book was published.  The

24     book was published during the last days of December last year.  That can

25     be established by checking it at the printing press and checking in the

Page 70

 1     National Library of Serbia where the first printed copies of any

 2     publication are sent first and foremost.  So it wasn't a few days ago.

 3     It was at the end of December last year.

 4             The book was published immediately after I filed, according to

 5     Rule 65 ter, the list of witnesses that I intend to call during the

 6     course of these proceedings.  And the statements of these witnesses are

 7     contained in that book.  Each and every one of these witnesses is saying

 8     that he or she is giving this statement publicly, that they agree to have

 9     it published, and so on.  I did not publish any statement given to the

10     Prosecution earlier on by any one of these witnesses.  I am just

11     publishing their public statements.  And every one of them signed before

12     a notary their consent to have the statement published.

13             Mr. MacFarlane doesn't know that because the book hasn't been

14     translated for him.  He didn't make an effort to obtain the book.  He

15     didn't even find out when it was printed and how many copies and so on

16     and so forth.  That is not serious.  There's a look of seriousness there.

17     He is using a lot of UN money but he is not doing his job

18     conscientiously.

19                           [Trial Chamber confers]

20             JUDGE KWON:  As I indicated, Mr. MacFarlane, the Chamber is of

21     the view to limit the scope of this case to the sole issue whether he

22     violated the order of the Court by publishing that book in a way of

23     revealing the identity and the protected statements of those protected

24     witnesses.

25             So what we are going to allow to add to the list is the -- those

Page 71

 1     English translation of excerpts from documents already on the original

 2     65 ter exhibit list.  And your intention is not only to add them to the

 3     list, but also to tender them for those documents to be admitted?

 4             MR. MacFARLANE:  Yes, that is correct, Your Honours.  I do seek

 5     to tender those documents.  And as well, there is a further issue

 6     concerning the report that parties and the Chamber received yesterday

 7     from the Registrar.  It touches on issues in relation to the former book.

 8     And for that reason I would seek to tender that and to file an amended 65

 9     ter list as well.  It's my submission that it's directly relevant -- in

10     the event of finding of guilty to the current count, it's directly

11     relevant to the question of sentence.

12                           [Trial Chamber confers]

13             JUDGE KWON:  The Chamber is not quite sure whether it is

14     necessary to admit it for the purpose of this case, so we leave it as it

15     is.

16             Mr. Seselj, we come to your motion to call your character

17     witnesses.  On 28th January, 2011, Mr. Seselj submitted a list of 28, I

18     quote, "character witnesses," whom he stated should be called at trial to

19     testify to his good character and the context in which his books have

20     originated.  The motion was filed confidentially upon order of the

21     Chamber as it contained information which remained still confidential.

22             The Chamber wishes to remind Mr. Seselj that Rule 46 of the

23     Tribunal's rules on misconduct of counsel is also applicable to

24     self-represented accused.  This list of character witnesses contains

25     abusive and insulting languages and suits no other purpose than to

Page 72

 1     obstruct the trial process and make a mockery of the Tribunal and these

 2     proceedings in particular.  The Chamber therefore dismisses the list of

 3     character witnesses as frivolous and an abuse of process.

 4             I think this disposes of the pending matters.  Now we turn to the

 5     planning of this trial.  So I -- Mr. Seselj.

 6             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, Mr. Kwon, not all pending

 7     matters have been resolved yet.  First of all, as regards my motion that

 8     you rejected, it does not contain a single insulting or derogatory term.

 9     It just contains the titles of book published long ago that may be

10     considered derogatory but are -- but cannot be changed as such, so in the

11     original they have to be there.  I mean, there are no other things that

12     may be deemed improper.

13             JUDGE KWON:  Mr. Seselj, the Chamber has given its ruling

14     already.

15             So, Mr. MacFarlane, how long do you expect your Prosecution case

16     to last?

17             MR. MacFARLANE:  Thank you, Your Honours.  I can confirm that I

18     do not intend to call any viva voce evidence.  I do intend to tender the

19     documents that have been received.  And in terms of length of time, I can

20     confirm that I expect it will still be between three and five hours,

21     probably closer to four, but that's just my best assessment.

22             JUDGE KWON:  Are you planning to make an opening statement?

23             MR. MacFARLANE:  Yes, I am.

24             JUDGE KWON:  And you will make closing argument after having

25     concluded all the evidence including Defence?

Page 73

 1             MR. MacFARLANE:  Yes, that's correct.  When I say between three

 2     to five hours, that includes the opening statement.  So it's the -- my

 3     proposal and my submission is that we could proceed along these lines,

 4     consistent with previous contempt cases in which I was involved:  I would

 5     provide an opening statement which would provide the usual overview of

 6     the evidence, the documents would then be tendered in a more formal way

 7     with comments on the relevance of each document for the benefit of the

 8     Chamber, and that would bring us pretty well close to the end of the case

 9     for the Prosecution.  But all of that, what I just described, would be

10     between three and four hours, I suspect.

11             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you, Mr. MacFarlane.

12             Mr. Seselj, the Chamber has been informed by the pro se liaison

13     office that there may be issues concerning the scheduling of your ten

14     witnesses.

15             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I don't know what this word

16     conflict means to you right now.  There's no conflict.  I wish to present

17     ten Defence witnesses, and I submitted all the filings very properly, I

18     provided their preliminary statements, they have been translated into the

19     English language.  However, the Registry made it impossible for me to

20     meet with my associates, with my Legal Advisor, Dejan Mirovic, who has a

21     master's degree in law, and another associate of mine, Nemanja Sarovic,

22     who also has a degree in law.  I submitted a request last year, towards

23     the end of last year, that they come and visit me and that the Registry

24     pay for their travel expenses.  They visited me once before, however, the

25     Registry did not allow Nemanja Sarovic a privileged visit.  And then

Page 74

 1     Dejan Mirovic, by way of a demonstration, refused to come.  My Legal

 2     Advisor and Case Manager have not visited me at all since this indictment

 3     was issued.  On the 17th of February, I received a letter from

 4     Jaimee Campbell, head of the department of OLAD, and she says that the

 5     Registry is not going to pay travel expenses at all for my Legal Advisor

 6     and the Case Manager.  I hope that you have a copy of that letter.  If

 7     not, I have a copy in the English language and you can take it if you're

 8     interested in seeing it.

 9             So I did not manage to prepare thoroughly with these proceedings

10     because I did not have a single meeting with my Legal Advisor and the

11     Case Manager.  Secondly, I would have to proof the witnesses.  My plan

12     was an examination in chief of about half an hour of each witness, so

13     that means about five hours altogether for the examination-in-chief.

14     However, I have to talk to every one of the witnesses before they walk

15     into the courtroom.  That is the practice of The Hague Tribunal, that all

16     witnesses are proofed regardless of whether they are Prosecution

17     witnesses or Defence witnesses.  I have to proof these witnesses and I

18     have no possibility of doing so.

19             The Registrar is standing in my way.  I don't have enough money

20     to pay for everyone's travel expenses.  This is something that should be

21     covered by the Tribunal.  This is not financing my Defence as such.

22     Covering travel expenses in each and every trial is not something that is

23     a bank roll by the Defence's budget.  It has to be financed by the

24     Registry and cannot be charged to the Defence.  In my trial, the

25     financing of my Defence has not been resolved yet.  We need to cover the

Page 75

 1     travel expenses and the accommodation expenses for one Legal Assistant,

 2     one Case Manager, and then a total of ten witnesses that I'm calling.  At

 3     the outset you told us that this exceptionally nice lady whose assistance

 4     Mr. MacFarlane has enlisted for this trial is in a position to address

 5     the Trial Chamber.  And then it strikes me that I don't have a single

 6     assistant of any kind who will have an opportunity to address the Court

 7     or not.

 8             We need to be on an equal footing here.  The Tribunal is paying

 9     Mr. MacFarlane and his associate and God knows who else.  Well then I say

10     the Tribunal should pay for my associates too.  The financing of my

11     Defence has not been resolved yet, but at least the Tribunal needs to

12     cover their travel expenses so that they could be here and help me along

13     with my Defence and proofing the witnesses.

14             I call some witness.  All these witnesses are persons who have

15     something to do with the charges against me, in terms of publishing

16     certain names, with the exception of one person whose name I will not

17     mention now, it is a witness who was established as committing perjury a

18     long time ago.  Last year the Prosecutor informed me and the

19     Trial Chamber in writing that they will not be invoking the testimony of

20     that witness at all.  Even the Prosecutor believes, is convinced, that

21     the testimony was false.  That is why I have no need at all for that

22     witness.  Nevertheless, as for the remaining ten witness, levelling

23     serious accusations against the OTP, are truly indispensable.

24     Indispensable why?  I need them here in this courtroom to confirm that

25     their names were published by their own free will.  It wasn't something I

Page 76

 1     did without their consent.  I was merely the person who made it happen.

 2     Not a single confidential document containing their names was published

 3     that was disclosed to me by the OTP.  The only documents published were

 4     the documents that were created while my associates were interviewing

 5     those witnesses.

 6             JUDGE KWON:  So, in short, you are not in the position to proceed

 7     with your Defence case, given the reasons you stated.

 8             So, Mr. Seselj, going back to that financing issue, as you are

 9     well aware by now, matters relating to the financing of the -- of an

10     accused's Defence are within the primary responsibility of the Registrar.

11     It is unfortunate that this financing issue could not be resolved before

12     today and that it will delay the completion of these proceedings, which

13     could and should have been completed in a relatively short time-frame.

14     However, the Chamber cannot but adjourn the proceedings since the Chamber

15     is of the view that you are entitled, under Article 21.4(e) of the

16     Statute, to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on your

17     behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against you.

18             The Chamber would note, however, that as a self-represented

19     accused, Mr. Seselj, you are responsible for making the initial

20     preparation to secure the prompt attendance of your witnesses.  The

21     pro se liaison office without doubt will provide you with all the

22     necessary assistance you may need in this respect.  And also in order to

23     get financing assistance from the Registry as an indigent person, there

24     are certain procedures you have to take.  That's all we can say at this

25     moment, Mr. Seselj.

Page 77

 1             In order not to waste time, the Chamber considers that the

 2     amicus Prosecutor would present his case today and that the proceedings

 3     should be adjourned sine die thereafter, pending the resolution of the

 4     accused's Defence by the Appeals Chamber.  And the parties will be

 5     informed in writing as to the date of recommencement of trial and how

 6     long Mr. Seselj will be granted for the presentation of the case.

 7             The Chamber's Legal Officer will contact the amicus curia

 8     Prosecutor as well as Defence via pro se liaison office.

 9             Yes, Mr. MacFarlane.

10             MR. MacFARLANE:  Thank you, Your Honours.  Thank you for the

11     ruling.  I just wanted to reiterate a point that I made before Judge Hall

12     on the last Pre-Trial Conference, just so that there's no -- no one's

13     taken by surprise.  I did want to mention on the last occasion that I

14     will be quite a distance from Northern Europe for a period of time in

15     April and early May and I just wanted to note that.  I'm quite happy to

16     work with the Senior Legal Officer in terms of working out a date, but I

17     wanted to be fair to the Chamber and let you know in advance.

18             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you, Mr. MacFarlane.  The Chamber is cognizant

19     of that information.

20             Then, Mr. MacFarlane, you have the floor.

21             The first break will be at 20 past 10.00.

22             MR. MacFARLANE:  Thank you, Your Honours.

23             I expect that I will in all likelihood be completed by the time

24     of the break.  I will endeavour to do that.

25             These proceedings arise by virtue of Rule 77 of the Rules of this

Page 78

 1     Tribunal, which in essence provides that the Tribunal in the exercise of

 2     its inherent power may hold in contempt those who disclose information in

 3     knowing violation of an order of the Chamber.  The -- on a review of the

 4     Order in Lieu of Indictment, there are -- and in light of the evidence

 5     that I will be alluding to, there are really two aspects to this case

 6     that I would like to highlight at the beginning.  The first relates to a

 7     hard cover book which contained confidential information.  And the second

 8     aspect relates to the inclusion of that same book and confidential

 9     information on the personal website of the accused.  And we've already

10     discussed briefly the effect and impact of the decision of this Chamber

11     on the 2nd of December, which noted that there was no need to amend the

12     Order in Lieu of Indictment but, rather, all of those matters could be

13     dealt with under the general rubric of the current Order in Lieu of

14     Indictment.

15             So as a result, during the course of the presentation of the

16     Prosecution's evidence, you will hear evidence on both of those aspects

17     of the case.

18             The facts in this case, in my respectful submission, are actually

19     quite straightforward.  The foundation of the case rests on several

20     orders of Chambers.  There were two orders at an early stage which are

21     all embracing in connection with these proceedings and are nonspecific to

22     individual witnesses.  The first was issued by Trial Chamber II in 2003,

23     and that focused on the importance of confidentiality of disclosure.  The

24     second, likewise, was a decision of Trial Chamber II in 2004, and that

25     focused once again on the confidentiality of disclosure materials.

Page 79

 1             So the general framework for these proceedings and the importance

 2     of confidentiality was established at an early stage, and the evidence

 3     will demonstrate that the accused was present throughout the proceedings

 4     and was aware of both of those general orders.

 5             Subsequently, however, the Trial Chamber ordered various

 6     protective measures that were specific to the 11 witnesses in issue.

 7     Those three orders emerged in June of 2005, August of 2007, and

 8     October of 2007.  I won't go into the details too much of these because I

 9     want to be careful in terms of not disclosing any confidentiality myself,

10     so I will endeavour to be general.

11             In connection with the 2005 order, the order was issued

12     unanimously and granted protective measures in connection with a number

13     of witnesses who are named and who were assigned a pseudonym.

14             In connection with the second order in August of 2007, that

15     matter was conducted and emerged from the Pre-Trial Judge who gave a very

16     detailed set of protective measures.  And the evidence will demonstrate

17     before you the lengths to which the Pre-Trial Judge considered the

18     witnesses on an individual basis and evidence concerning those individual

19     witnesses.  And then in a very tailored way, tailored a series of

20     protective measures that was responsive to the circumstances concerning

21     each of those witnesses.

22             And in the third and final order of protective measures in

23     October of 2007, once again before the Pre-Trial Judge, there was a

24     further consideration again on an individualized basis with particular

25     attention to the evidence that was provided to the Pre-Trial Judge.  And

Page 80

 1     once again there is a carefully-tailored set of protective measures that

 2     was prepared and ordered by that Chamber.

 3             The point of all of that is simply that in the tradition of the

 4     Chambers at the International Tribunal, there is very careful attention

 5     to the evidence and a tailoring of the protective measures to respond to

 6     the evidence and that the accused was aware of that and was present and

 7     received copies of the orders.

 8             The position that we're in, then, as of late 2007 after the

 9     completion of all of these orders was that specific protective measures

10     were in place for all 11 witnesses that are in issue in these

11     proceedings.  The evidence will demonstrate through a series of decisions

12     procès-verbal and submissions from the accused that he was aware that

13     these protective measures were in place.  And more particularly, the

14     evidence will demonstrate that he knew that there was a prohibition on

15     the publishing of information in connection with these protected

16     witnesses.  It will also be demonstrated through the evidence that the

17     accused was very much aware of the fact that there was a need to come

18     back to Chambers if there's a desire to rescind or vary this detailed

19     framework of protective measures.  The evidence on that will be quite

20     overwhelming.

21             So, moving forward a little bit to late 2007, just to summarise

22     what the evidence will demonstrate:  It will demonstrate that protective

23     measures were in place, they have been fully considered by the Chamber,

24     the accused knew that they were in place, the accused knew he couldn't

25     publish confidential information that fell within the framework that had

Page 81

 1     been established by Chambers, and he knew that he couldn't publish

 2     confidential submissions.

 3             Moving from late 2007 until around the middle of 2008, slightly

 4     beyond the middle of 2008, the evidence will demonstrate a fair bit of

 5     activity on the part of the accused in terms of this whole

 6     protected witness framework.  The accused became somewhat litigious

 7     during this period of time on this issue.  And through his submissions

 8     and decisions that emerged, it will demonstrate quite clearly in terms of

 9     the accused's knowledge that the accused knew that Chambers, and not he

10     and not other third parties, but Chambers controls the process of

11     determining whether protective measures are issued and whether they are

12     rescinded and whether they're varied.

13             The evidence will demonstrate, and this is important in the

14     overall scheme, that the accused knew that it was necessary, if there was

15     a desire to rescind or vary, that one needs to proceed back to Chambers

16     so that there can be a judicial assessment of whether that's an

17     appropriate step.  And in fact, the evidence will demonstrate that the

18     accused and his associates actually assisted one individual in going back

19     to Chambers.

20             Further to that, during this, what I'll refer to as a litigious

21     period, the accused himself brought a motion for protective measures in

22     respect of certain witnesses.  So it's quite clear in terms of the

23     accused's knowledge, he had a fairly, not a fairly, a pretty good

24     understanding of the statute and the rules and the procedures that were

25     necessary.  And that will certainly be an inference that will be open to

Page 82

 1     the Chamber upon full consideration of the evidence.

 2             So now, in terms of moving forward and the position that we're in

 3     right now, the orders are in place, the accused is familiar with the

 4     legal scheme and the framework.  The evidence will in the next stages, as

 5     we move along in this continuum, will demonstrate his breaches.  And the

 6     evidence will show that those breaches of the order and the scheme that

 7     was in place was done knowingly, was deliberate.  And I anticipate the

 8     evidence will demonstrate that he was defiant in his approach.  And that,

 9     in my respectful submission, is exactly what the contempt scheme is

10     intended to deal with.

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted).  First of

22     all, it disclosed information that enabled the reader to identify the

23     protected witnesses by publishing their full names, publishing their

24     addresses, and publishing in most instances their identity card number.

25     So the information was quite specific.  And on some of the witnesses, not

Page 83

 1     all necessarily, but in several instances, the breaches went further and

 2     outlined such identifying information as dates of birth, place of birth,

 3     occupation, and unique master citizen number.

 4             I anticipate that the evidence will demonstrate that this is not

 5     a case where the information that was published simply tends to identify

 6     or is capable of identifying or may identify protected witnesses.  This

 7     is a case of actual identification of persons who are were still under a

 8     protective legal umbrella.

 9             But the 2008 book actually goes further than that.  There is a

10     second dimension to the manner in which it breached the orders of

11     protection.  The book reprints submissions to the Tribunal that have been

12     reclassified by Chambers as confidential and for reasons that were

13     appropriate throughout.  But I expect the evidence will demonstrate that

14     these submissions which to the knowledge of the accused were confidential

15     were deliberately published, and they in turn contained further

16     identifying information.

17             You will receive evidence demonstrating, in relation to these

18     submissions, that they originated from the accused; they were

19     reclassified as confidential by the Chamber in the normal course of

20     events pursuant to internal protocols; that the accused knew of the

21     reclassification through a formal notice process that's well-established

22     within the Tribunal; and that the accused knew of the implications of

23     publishing confidential information, including his own submissions that

24     have been classified as confidential.

25             Concerning the 2008 book, the evidence, I anticipate, will

Page 84

 1     demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the publication of this

 2     information was done deliberately and defiantly and was certainly not

 3     done accidently.  The evidence will show that he was aware of the orders

 4     and decided to publish anyway.

 5             Concerning the scope of publication, which is always relevant in

 6     a case of publication contempt, the accused further compounded the

 7     contempt beyond simply publishing a book in hard cover.  The hard cover

 8     book, the evidence will show, had a print run of approximately 10.000,

 9     but that contempt was compounded by publishing the book on his own

10     website.

11             I think, in my submission, the website aspect to the case is an

12     important one for the Chamber to consider because if one, through normal

13     hard cover books, seeks to distribute information, there are the normal

14     limitations of getting the information out.  You only have certain

15     numbers of copies, each copy costs something, you need to promote it, you

16     need to get it out.  So there's all sorts of limitations to a hard cover

17     book.  But the decision to publish on the Internet was a very serious

18     step.  Internet publication is far more pervasive than print publication

19     for a number of reasons.  First of all, you have potentially a worldwide

20     audience well beyond what a hard copy book to be directed to.  Secondly,

21     you have virtually an unlimited number of readers who could, as the

22     evidence will demonstrate, download the book free of charge.  Thirdly,

23     the evidence will demonstrate that the book has been available on the

24     website of the accused since the earlier portion of 2010, and the

25     evidence will demonstrate that it's still on the Internet.  Fourthly, and

Page 85

 1     there's quite a number of points that can be made in terms of why the

 2     Internet publication is more serious, but the last one that I'll mention

 3     at this point is that in the case of a hard cover book there have been

 4     instances where the book was recalled, and I have personally been

 5     involved in instances of that.  Where the book or the information is on

 6     the Internet is virtually impossible to do any sort of effective recall.

 7             I can draw my comments to a conclusion by simply summarising what

 8     I expect will be the thrust of the case for the Prosecution.  As I have

 9     mentioned on a couple of occasions, in terms of the mens rea or fault

10     requirement of the offence of contempt, I anticipate that the evidence

11     will be very convincing, that this was a deliberate and defiant approach

12     by the accused.  The case, as I mentioned at the beginning, is relatively

13     straightforward.  Protective measures were in place, the accused was

14     familiar with the scheme, he became litigious, he had been unsuccessful

15     in his attempts to rescind.  And it would be open to the Chamber to draw

16     the inference that he arrived at a new strategy and that was to not

17     simply go back to Chambers to have the protective measures dealt with in

18     Chambers but, rather, to get the information out through other means,

19     namely through the book and the website publication of the information he

20     wanted to have public.

21             The evidence will demonstrate that one of the objectives and one

22     of the motives of the accused was that he wanted to ensure that the

23     public would see the evidence that went before the Chamber, unobstructed

24     and in full light.  That was his overall objective on the basis of the

25     evidence.  He felt frustrated and adopted a new strategy.  That's a

Page 86

 1     rather brief outline of the case as I expect it will be presented to you

 2     by the Prosecution.

 3             Given the given the ruling of the Chamber with respect to the

 4     right of audience, for which I thank the Chamber, the next stage in the

 5     presentation --

 6             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Objection.

 7             JUDGE KWON:  What is it, Mr. Seselj?

 8             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. MacFarlane is using improper

 9     language without permission.  How does he know that I felt frustrated?

10     He's not allowed to say that kind of thing here.  He can seek expertise,

11     but he is talking about my subjective condition.  How can he be allowed

12     to do that?

13             JUDGE KWON:  Your intervention is not helpful, Mr. Seselj.

14             MR. MacFARLANE:  As I was just about to say, the next stage in

15     the case for the Prosecution will involve a presentation by my colleague

16     with respect to the documentary evidence.  And for the benefit and

17     hopefully the assistance to the Chamber, she will be commenting on the

18     relevance of each document and how the documents fit into the case as a

19     whole.  So I would turn the next stage over to my colleague Ms. Wanlin.

20             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you, Mr. MacFarlane.

21             Yes, Ms. Wanlin.

22             MS. WANLIN:  Good morning, Your Honours.  I have binders that we

23     would like to distribute, so just bear with us, please.

24             JUDGE KWON:  Ms. Wanlin, although we have admitted all of this,

25     but we have to be very cautious because given that most of them will be

Page 87

 1     confidential material.

 2             MS. WANLIN:  Yes, Your Honour.  Thank you.

 3             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Objection.  Mr. Kwon, the material

 4     I received here is in the English language only.  I don't understand this

 5     English language.  I insist that the entire set of material be provided

 6     to me in the Serbian language.  I'm returning this.

 7             JUDGE KWON:  Mr. Seselj, these are transcripts or part of Court

 8     records and you know the practice and the rules of the Tribunal.

 9             Let us proceed, Ms. Wanlin.

10             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Precisely.  Precisely, Mr. Kwon.

11     Precisely.  Because I do know what the practice in the Tribunal is.

12     Although these documents had been provided to me earlier on, it is the

13     duty of the Prosecution when providing a set of material to the

14     Trial Chamber just before the proceedings start they have to send a set

15     to me as well.  This has been observed in all trials so far and has to be

16     observed in this trial too.

17             JUDGE KWON:  Would you like to respond, Mr. MacFarlane or

18     Ms. Wanlin?

19             MS. WANLIN:  Your Honour, we have provided copies in B/C/S to the

20     accused prior to the proceedings.  At the break we can endeavour to

21     produce a second copy in B/C/S if the Chamber pleases.  However, the

22     translation will be made during these proceedings which I believe that

23     the accused will be able to follow.

24             JUDGE KWON:  Let me be clear.  Do we have a translation of

25     transcript as well?

Page 88

 1             MS. WANLIN:  No, Your Honour.  We don't have the translation of

 2     the transcripts.  One of the points that I was going to be making was to

 3     read out the sections of the transcripts and therefore the accused would

 4     receive the relevant sections in B/C/S so that he would be able to

 5     comment.

 6             JUDGE KWON:  And we don't have the translation of Court

 7     decisions, do we?

 8             MS. WANLIN:  I don't have the decisions in the binders.  They are

 9     available on CD and this is where --

10             JUDGE KWON:  There exist English translation of -- B/C/S

11     translation of Court decisions?

12             MS. WANLIN:  Yes, the B/C/S versions do exist.  And I will point

13     out that the procès-verbal are actually in both B/C/S and in English, as

14     are -- several of the exhibits I'll be referring to are in both B/C/S and

15     in English.  And further, many of the documents are actually English

16     translations of the accused's book and therefore we don't have the B/C/S

17     copy.

18             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Sir, Mr. Kwon, I insist that I be

19     given everything in the Serbian language.  The transcripts must be

20     submitted to me in the Serbian language.  It is simply not practicable

21     for Mrs. - I can't seem to remember her name - read back portions of the

22     transcript and then to have that orally interpreted to me.  That has

23     never been done before in any of the trials.  It is impermissible and

24     only goes to show that the Prosecution is not ready for this trial.

25             JUDGE KWON:  These transcripts are part of the transcript which

Page 89

 1     pertains to the trial against Mr. Seselj.

 2             MS. WANLIN:  These are all transcripts from the main trial.  It

 3     is our understanding that the policy of the Tribunal is not to translate

 4     transcripts but that the accused has been provided with a DVD copy of all

 5     of the proceedings and therefore is current with all of the information

 6     available.

 7             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.  Thank you.

 8                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 9             JUDGE KWON:  Given that these are part of the trial of Mr. Seselj

10     and he has access to the video, audio/video file, the Chamber will

11     proceed with the presentation of evidence.

12             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Kwon, Mr. Kwon, not only did I

13     receive the recordings of those trial, I was actually in the courtroom

14     myself, but the transcript from my trial runs into over 20.000 pages of

15     typed up text.  Over 20.000 pages.

16             JUDGE KWON:  The Chamber has given its ruling.

17             Let's proceed, Ms. Wanlin.

18             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, probably the best thing would

19     be for the Trial Chamber to decide to press on with this case against me,

20     if you intend to keep me here as a passive observer.  You are violating

21     my rights openly, brutally.  You are telling me the Chamber has given its

22     ruling.  What's my role then?

23             JUDGE KWON:  Your intervention is not helpful, Mr. Seselj.  We'll

24     see to it that your rights are protected to the full extent.

25             Let's proceed, Ms. Wanlin.

Page 90

 1             MS. WANLIN:  Thank you, Your Honour.  I would like to have the

 2     assistance of the Court Usher if possible.  I will be referring to a

 3     document on the ELMO system.  This is a revised document that you have

 4     already received in the pre-trial brief.  And if you look in your

 5     binders, a copy of it is in the front of the --

 6             Sorry, please, this should be -- this is confidential, so if it

 7     could be broadcast to the Chamber and not to the audience, that would be

 8     recommended, please.

 9             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Would it be of any use to you,

10     Mr. Kwon, if I told you that this document is only in the English

11     language?  There is nothing whatsoever in it that is in the Serbian

12     language.  Is that any use to you?

13             JUDGE KWON:  This is not an exhibit.  This is just aid.  Let's

14     see what we can get from this.

15             Yes, Ms. Wanlin.

16             MS. WANLIN:  Thank you, Your Honours.

17             So I'll be beginning with three key questions that we'd like to

18     address.  The first was, was there a disclosure; the next is, were there

19     protective measures in effect at the time of the disclosure; and thirdly,

20     the question of did the accused have knowledge of the protective measures

21     at the time of the disclosure.  I will follow that with the evidence

22     related to sentencing.

23             The first question that I will address is:  Were there orders of

24     a Chamber in effect at the time --

25             THE INTERPRETER:  Thank you for slowing down.

Page 91

 1             MS. WANLIN:  My apologies.  Were there orders of a Chamber in

 2     effect at the time of the disclosure.  I will draw your attention to

 3     Annex B, which is now on the ELMO system.  Yes.  And as you will note at

 4     the top of this diagram, it's a time-line.  What we seek to establish is

 5     the point of publication in relation to when the protective measures were

 6     in effect and when there were submissions by the accused which were

 7     ordered confidential.

 8             You will note at the top we refer to the hard copy of the book

 9     was published.  We've established that it was published after the

10     1st of September of 2008.  The inside cover of the book does not specify

11     the specific month of the publication.  It merely refers to the year of

12     publication.  But there is a reference to -- in the book.  I will refer

13     you to tab 55 L.

14             JUDGE KWON:  Just a second.

15             MS. WANLIN:  Pardon me.

16             JUDGE KWON:  If the Legal Officer could approach the Bench.

17                           [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]

18             JUDGE KWON:  Shall we go into private session.

19             MS. WANLIN:  Yes, Your Honour

20                           [Private session]

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 92

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3                           [Open session]

 4             THE REGISTRAR:  We are in an open session, Your Honours.

 5             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.

 6             Please proceed, Ms. Wanlin.

 7             MS. WANLIN:  So I would like to draw your attention to tab 55 in

 8     your binder.  If you go to tab L.  And on page 11 of tab L.

 9             JUDGE KWON:  Sorry, it has only --

10             MS. WANLIN:  Pardon me, that was me misreading my notes.  Tab I.

11     Your Honours, I believe that there's a sticky note at the relevant

12     section at the bottom of the page.  And in light of the fact that we are

13     in open session, I will simply refer to an interview that is noted on the

14     particular date that -- in the publication by the name of "Vesti" which

15     refers to an interview that was done by Nebojsa Stojanovic.

16             I would now like to draw your attention to tab 56 which I will

17     note is actually in B/C/S.  And "Vesti," from our understanding, is a

18     publication that is for the diaspora, it is published in a number of

19     different places, but we can -- if we look at this second page, the back

20     of the second page has the relevant parts translated, and this coincides

21     with the information that was referred to at tab 55 I at the bottom of

22     the page that I just referred to.  So we believe that this helps to

23     pin-point the date of publication.

24             In addition to this, we would like to refer to, if you turn to

25     tab 55 A, and on page 7, which once again is tabbed in Your Honours'

Page 93

 1     binders, about partway down, there is a reference to a decision of the

 2     Chamber.  I might ask to go momentarily into closed session, if I might.

 3             JUDGE KWON:  Before that, I note the time.  How about taking a

 4     break now.  We'll have a break for half an hour and resume at ten to

 5     11.00.

 6                           --- Recess taken at 10.18 a.m.

 7                           --- On resuming at 10.54 a.m.

 8             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Kwon, there is another problem

 9     that has cropped up which I would like to present to you before the lady

10     continues.  You allowed the Prosecutor to have an opening statement,

11     nevertheless it is my impression that the lady from the Prosecution has

12     already started presenting evidence.  Under Rule 84 bis, I have the right

13     following the opening statement of the OTP to make a statement in my

14     capacity as an accused.  It is not before such time that the Prosecution

15     can go ahead and start presenting evidence.

16             JUDGE KWON:  My apologies, I forgot to ask.  I was minded to ask

17     that but I just simply missed it.  But is it your case that you want to

18     make a statement based upon Rule 84 bis or Rule 84?

19             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No.  Under Rule 84, once the

20     conditions are there.  But all what I can do now is make an 84 bis

21     statement.

22             JUDGE KWON:  That was my question, whether you are minded to make

23     a Rule 84 bis statement.

24             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes.

25             JUDGE KWON:  How long will that take?

Page 94

 1             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, half an hour, I suppose.

 2                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 3             JUDGE KWON:  My apologies, Ms. Wanlin, for your inconvenience,

 4     but we'll proceed to hear Mr. Seselj's Rule 84 bis statement.

 5             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, judges.  Do I have half

 6     an hour?  Do I?  I hope so.

 7             JUDGE KWON:  Please proceed.

 8             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Sirs, Judges, this is the second

 9     contempt proceedings against me at this Tribunal already.  Why has the

10     situation occurred?  What has led to these proceedings?  Because for

11     eight years a Prosecutor has in vein been trying to create some kind of

12     link between me and war crimes.  The Prosecutor has suffered a fiasco.

13     And what they are trying to do now is to use my time in detention which

14     can in no way be justified and fill it with judgements and sentences for

15     contempt of court.

16             All that I have tried to achieve in this trial is to keep the

17     public as well informed as possible of everything that goes on here.  My

18     right to a public trial is guaranteed under a great number of

19     international conventions.  These conventions say exactly when the nature

20     of the trial can cease to be public.  I will use a document which my

21     Legal Associate Dejan Mirovic, MA in law, sent to the Security Council of

22     the UN pursuant to my instructions in which he put forward a number of

23     arguments about why trials that are not public run counter to fundamental

24     human rights and freedoms.

25             I can provide a copy in Russian, French, and English of this text

Page 95

 1     in its entirety.  Therefore, may copies please be made for the OTP as

 2     well, since I only happen to have a single copy on me right now.  So

 3     could the Registry please use my copy to make copies both for the

 4     Trial Chamber and for the OTP.  The European convention on the protection

 5     of human rights and fundamental freedoms guarantees that every human

 6     being has a right to a public trial.  The public can only be shut out

 7     from this entire process only if the best interest of morale, the social

 8     structure, and constitution are best served or if there's a need to

 9     protect the interest of any minors involved or the public lives of any of

10     the persons involved.

11             I'm not being tried here for any sort of sexual offence.  I'm not

12     being tried for anything at all that might violate the moral order or the

13     public order of democratic states.  I stand accused here of the gravest

14     of all crimes, crimes against humanity, before an international tribunal

15     for war crimes.  The crimes that we are talking about are exceptionally

16     serious and the proceedings must be public in their entirety.

17             Regardless of that, the Judges of The Hague Tribunal introduced

18     Rule 77, allowing for the possibility to prosecute for contempt of court

19     if information is published regarding protected witnesses.  This rule has

20     no foundation in international customary criminal law.  This is something

21     that the Judges of The Hague Tribunal came up with or invented.  If you

22     look at the statute of Rome, if you look at the rules, the statute of the

23     ICC, you'll see that there is no provision about contempt of court there

24     as defined by publishing names of protected witnesses.

25             Needless to say, there are many witnesses who are in need of

Page 96

 1     protection.  Nevertheless, the protection is arranged before they appear

 2     in a courtroom and after they have left.  Their appearance in a courtroom

 3     must be public.  If there is any real danger involved, then the witness

 4     must be taken elsewhere far away, to the far end of the world, get their

 5     names changed, get their identities changed, give them the right

 6     conditions to get on with their lives, and so on and so forth.

 7             In my trial, there was absolutely no reason to have any witnesses

 8     at all protected in this way.  I never threatened any of the witnesses.

 9     I never threatened to violate their physical integrity in any way.  And

10     these allegations are made in my trial.  I never made a single threat to

11     any of the witnesses.  All I want to do is unmask false witnesses who

12     appear in this courtroom and what I want to do is do this before the eyes

13     of the public.  Because if the public does not know what is happening

14     during my trial, I might as well be swallowed by the earth beneath me.

15     The public is the only form of protection that I enjoy and the only form

16     of protection that I can count on.

17             You know how many innocent people have been sentenced before this

18     Tribunal over the last 18 years, starting with Milan Martic and then

19     moving on to other innocent victims.  These persons were perfectly

20     innocent.  Why were they sentenced?  Because their Defence was inadequate

21     and also because the public was shut out from parts of the proceedings.

22     I enjoy the privilege of the Serbian national television broadcasting the

23     entire trial, my entire trial, at least the public portions of my trial.

24     And that had a particularly depressing effect on the OTP.  The conspiracy

25     at the outset that I should be sentenced in short order for purely

Page 97

 1     political reasons, that has now failed.

 2             Mr. Kwon, exactly eight years ago you signed the first indictment

 3     against me.  You were given some additional material but you did not take

 4     the trouble of studying that material because otherwise you would have

 5     seen that there was no serious evidence there and that the indictment was

 6     purely a political one.  Carla del Ponte's book, which was published at a

 7     later date, clearly demonstrated why an indictment was raised against me.

 8     Why?  Because at the time, I was in the way.  I was in the way of the

 9     mafia pro-Western regime that was in power at the time.  Zoran Djindjic,

10     he clearly said, when he talked to Carla del Ponte, Take Seselj away and

11     please don't ever send him back again.  This policy continues.  Now that

12     you've taken him away, hold him there for as long as you can over there

13     in The Hague.  If you can't get him sentenced for crimes, war crimes,

14     well, maybe you can get him sentenced for something else, contempt of

15     court.  How about that.

16             For all I know there might be another ten trials where I will

17     stand accused.  I will certainly do my best to have at least another ten

18     contempt trials instituted against me.  I will not be deterred by anyone.

19     As the great leader of all Korean people says, Kim Jong-il, Whoever

20     fights sincerely in the interest of truth and freedom must be prepared to

21     sacrifice, to make a sacrifice.  I followed his shining example and I

22     have demonstrated my readiness to make sacrifice, even if I should face

23     death itself.  Until my conditions are met and fulfilled, I will do my

24     best to cope with whatever I may be subjected to here.  I have since

25     become indestructible and I will remain indestructible to the bitter end.

Page 98

 1             Secondly, if we look at the codification of international

 2     criminal law - I've mentioned the statute, I've mentioned the rules of

 3     the ICC - it does not give you the right, it actually gives me the right

 4     in terms of contempt of court.  If you look at the Rules on Procedure and

 5     Evidence, the statute of Rome, you have the following crimes clearly

 6     defined:  Perjury.  False testimony, no one has stood accused so far

 7     before this Tribunal for perjury, although there were instances of

 8     perjury and false witnesses in each and every trial here.

 9             Ask yourselves, Judges, why is that the case?  You work as Judges

10     in a Tribunal whose legality and legitimacy are entirely questionable.

11     You have accepted your role but what you now must do is to defend your

12     own honour and save face.  What about infractions of moral standards and

13     rules, basic human honesty and decency, what are the things happening

14     here before this Tribunal.  Many people managed to get away with many

15     things, but I'm still hoping that at one point there will be a Judge who

16     will put his foot down and say, That's enough.  Hasn't happened yet, but

17     I'm still hoping.  It appears that I will yet see all of The Hague

18     Tribunal's Judges appear in my case in various roles and guises, but I'm

19     still hoping that there will be a Judge eventually who will put his foot

20     down and say, My face is more important than the interests of the great

21     political powers backing this Tribunal, particularly the US of A and the

22     UK.

23             This Tribunal is their political tool.  This Tribunal was not set

24     up to see to it that justice was done.  If you look at the foundation

25     documents of this Tribunal, it is defined as a tool for re-establishing

Page 99

 1     peace, these so-called Pax Americana, and that is precisely what it

 2     continues to be.  Justice is swept under the carpet.  It's somewhere well

 3     concealed in the basement of this building.  What we see surfacing more

 4     and more is the interests of the Western powers.  In most other trials, I

 5     can't say all, but I can say most, and I've read every single judgement

 6     that has been made available to me, the Defence was instrumentalised by

 7     the Tribunal and fully paid by the Tribunal in most trials here.  Whose

 8     interests did they represent?  The payer's interests.  Whoever was

 9     bank-rolling their work.  There wasn't a single trial in which a Defence

10     team was fully ready and prepared to oppose the wantonness of the

11     Prosecutor or the respective Judges as the case may be.

12             Mr. Kwon, you were a member of the Trial Chamber that tried

13     Slobodan Milosevic.  One of the witnesses appearing in the Milosevic

14     trial was announced to be scheduled to appear in my trial; nevertheless,

15     this particular witness appears to have changed his mind.  The Tribunal

16     failed to meet all of the promised conditions.  So the witness simply

17     changed sides.

18             He said several times that he perjured himself in the Milosevic

19     trial.  He signed statements to that effect and addressed the issue

20     publicly over in Serbia.  He spoke to TV stations, to radio stations, and

21     various newspapers in Serbia.  This is O2C6 in my trial; that's the

22     witness's code-name.  I don't remember his code-name in the Milosevic

23     trial, but he was the first witness who said, I was coerced into giving

24     false testimony, and that is what I did, I gave false testimony.  That

25     should have rung the alarm bell throughout this Tribunal.

Page 100

 1             I filed a criminal complaint with the president of the Tribunal.

 2     My complaint was thrown out and the explanation that followed was this:

 3     Proceedings are underway already to establish whether there are any

 4     elements to establish the responsibility of The Hague Tribunal for

 5     contempt, amicus curiae, who was appointed, whose name is being kept

 6     secret; it wasn't published, and I haven't been informed of that person's

 7     name, and now he would rise to the occasion.  So this has been going on

 8     for over six months.

 9             My first criminal complaints were filed several years ago and the

10     evidence was abundant, clearly indicating that there had been false

11     testimony, that witnesses had coerced by the OTP to give false testimony,

12     that they were made certain promises that turned out to be false.  Or

13     they were simply told that unless they testified as the OTP wanted them

14     to testify, that they would be facing charges themselves.

15             It was then said that no further indictments would follow after

16     2005.  All the fear was suddenly gone.  People started asking themselves

17     certain questions and they started publishing certain facts, the truth.

18     I have never published a single name of a false witness.  No matter how

19     false and no matter how persistent in their falsehood.  All I did was to

20     publish the testimonies of people whose hand was forced, who were coerced

21     into giving false testimony.  But at one point they turned around, they

22     went back to the members of my Defence team, spoke to them, and gave

23     statements that were entirely different and new.  There were a total of

24     about 20 such witnesses, many of them appearing in this courtroom as OTP

25     witnesses, many of them appearing as the Chamber's witnesses.

Page 101

 1             You will no doubt see that many of them were adamant that their

 2     testimonies should be public in their entirety, which eventually

 3     happened, their testimonies were public.  One of them appeared in the

 4     courtroom, took a seat, and the Chamber told him that he would be

 5     testifying under protective measures, and he said, No way.  The only way

 6     I can testify here is in public.

 7             There was a discussion in closed session for about an hour.  The

 8     witness was adamant that his testimony should be a public one, and the

 9     Trial Chamber eventually ruled to drop this witness altogether.

10             It took another 10 minutes for the Chamber after the decision was

11     communicated to him to get the Trial Chamber to -- for the Trial Chamber

12     to get the witness to leave the courtroom because he refused to go away.

13     He wanted to testify.  Many persons enjoy protective measures, but when

14     they came to this courtroom it to testify, they openly said that they had

15     never requested those measures.  This was something that had been force

16     upon them by the OTP against their own will and they decided to go ahead

17     and testify in public.  So I'm looking at a total of ten witnesses

18     here whom I would like to bring here, and many of them have already as a

19     matter of fact testified in public.  I will give you the exact number.

20     Most of them have testified in public.  Four of them were eventually

21     dropped by the Trial Chamber or by the OTP.

22             Why did the OTP decide to drop certain witnesses and give up on

23     their evidence?  Because they were scared.  If there is a witness who is

24     adamant that he should testify in public, the whole conspiracy charge is

25     gone and they can't get people to fabricate false testimonies.  There was

Page 102

 1     a lot of false evidence in the preliminary statements.  The OTP never

 2     even tried to verify whether what was in those statements was feasible at

 3     all in terms of physically happening.  One of the statements said that I

 4     had the Roman Catholic cathedral in Subotica blown up.  But it's still

 5     there, alive and well, and no one ever blew it up.  Maybe someone threw a

 6     fire cracker at one point or the other, but there wasn't even any serious

 7     material damage.  There was certain witnesses who said that in my public

 8     speeches at rallies attended by several thousands of people I said that

 9     all children from mixed marriages should be killed.  There was a witness

10     who said there was this rally in August 1990 at Mali Zvornik and this

11     witness claimed that the rally took place in March 1992.  And then a link

12     was established between that rally and the war events in Zvornik later

13     on, but that was proved to be untrue.  And yet nothing became of that.

14     No one suffered any harm.

15             In my trial, the OTP dropped two witnesses who were supposed to

16     testify and who were here in the courtroom already, but then the OTP

17     realised their testimonies were false, so they informed both me and the

18     Trial Chamber that they would no longer be basing any of the charges on

19     the evidence given by those witnesses.

20             So what did I do?  I stand accused of entirely fabricated crimes

21     in Hrtkovci.  I ordered my investigators to track down any documents

22     available to counter the allegations of the OTP and to publish the whole

23     thing in the form of a book.  And then the Trial Chamber, headed by you,

24     Mr. Kwon, sentenced me because a careful reader based on facts provided

25     in the book on a number of different pages would have been led to the

Page 103

 1     true identities of those witnesses.  And I was sentenced to 15 months'

 2     imprisonment, which was far more severe than anyone had been punished

 3     previously for crimes of that nature.

 4             Earlier on there were cases where the witness's identities were

 5     made public in newspapers, on websites, and the sentences would be up to

 6     four months or maybe symbolic sums of money in the worst of cases.  Two

 7     years ago you decided there was no reason to charge me about this book.

 8     That was at the same time when the proceedings were underway in relation

 9     to the other book, the hard-bound book that runs into 1.200 pages.  And

10     then what happens next, the Appeals Chamber sends this back to you, sends

11     it back to the drawing board, and says, You have to try him for this book

12     as well.  So what do you do?  You charge me.  And then I wanted to have

13     all of your rulings, the rulings that you made previously when you had

14     decided to not charge me for that, but none were served on me.  All of

15     the rulings were served on the amicus curiae but I have not received any

16     to this very day.  Why would I need those?  Well, Mr. Kwon, I need those

17     to ascertain exactly your state of mind two years ago, at a point where

18     you decided that there was no reason to press charges against me about

19     that book.  And yet now you have decided that there is reason to do just

20     that.  So what has changed in the meantime?  I need to assess that.  I

21     can assess that based on your behaviour in the courtroom and any

22     judgements that might follow.

23             So what has happened in the mean time?  It's got to be something

24     strange.  Two years ago there was no reason to go ahead with that.  And

25     now suddenly there is a sufficient reason to go ahead with the charges.

Page 104

 1     Why now?  Because in the meantime orders have come in from the Americans

 2     and the British that I should not be allowed to go back to Serbia until

 3     another round of parliamentary elections has run its course.  Those were

 4     the orders.  And the American and British servants over in Belgrade are

 5     adamant to see it done, those from the regime, those currently in power,

 6     and those masquerading as the opposition, obviously.  It's not that I

 7     absolutely have to go back, not now, not ever, but I will not yield.  I

 8     will not give way.  What have I done?  We have a total of 19 or 20

 9     witnesses.  These witnesses have decided to not appear as OTP witnesses

10     but to make themselves available to the purpose of my Defence.  They

11     agreed to appear as Defence witnesses.

12             I duly notified the Trial Chamber of the facts and I submitted

13     their new statements.  All of the previous rulings in the Trial Chamber

14     were in reference to OTP documents.  Protective measures were in relation

15     to OTP witnesses and their preliminary statements.  When those witnesses

16     changed sides and decided to side with the Defence, suddenly they started

17     speaking up in public.  I'm this and that person, my name is this and

18     that, the OTP wanted to force my hand and get me to appear in the trial

19     against Vojislav Seselj, I was coerced, my hand was forced, or I was

20     otherwise unaware of what I was signing, but I now refuse to appear as an

21     OTP witness, and the testimony that is attributed to me is false,

22     fabricated.

23             I have never published a single statement given by any witness to

24     the OTP.  I've never published a single document that was under seal,

25     that was placed under seal by the Trial Chamber.  All I've ever published

Page 105

 1     are statements made by those witnesses to me, those witnesses speaking up

 2     loud and clear for all the public to hear, telling the truth about any

 3     events that they may have been involved in, and particularly the truth

 4     about any events they were not involved in but their hand was forced by

 5     the OTP into giving false testimony about those same events.  So that is

 6     what I have now done.  And I made this public for all to see.

 7             What is the top-most interest of the public?  The utmost interest

 8     of the public?  To be informed.  Have I imperilled everyone by informing

 9     the public that 20 Defence witnesses gave statements to me, although they

10     had been Prosecution witnesses beforehand?  And they agreed for me to

11     disclose these statements publicly.  I did not imperil anyone in that

12     way, nor is it my intention to imperil anyone.  My only intention is to

13     unmask the OTP from The Hague.  I wish I had been indicted earlier

14     because then I would have shaken the foundations of the Tribunal already

15     in 1995 or 1996 by showing the methods that the OTP has been using.

16             I was indicted as a relatively late stage but I never gave up on

17     my intention of doing that.  I did that in this book.  Now I published

18     yet another book.  Now, what did I present in that book?  The only thing

19     I presented were the statement of witnesses that I'm going to call here

20     in this courtroom as Defence witnesses.  They are all going to go through

21     this courtroom and they are all going to testify in public.  Every one of

22     them gave me their consent in writing that I may disclose their

23     statements as Defence witnesses publicly, and that is what I'm doing.

24             Is there a court of law that can force these witnesses to remain

25     anonymous?  Especially since some of them had already testified in public

Page 106

 1     in the main trial and they confirmed that they had never sought

 2     protective measures.  They also confirmed that they had never been

 3     threatened.  In different cases there were witnesses who, in order to get

 4     to a Western country and get a job there, home, money and so on, agreed

 5     to provide false testimony.  There was a witness here who was haggling

 6     with the OTP just before he walked into the courtroom, whether he is

 7     going to testify in accordance with the statement that he gave to the OTP

 8     or the statement that he gave to me.  He said that he would testify in

 9     favour of the Prosecution if they meet all his requests and if the OTP

10     honours all its promises.  This is one of the witnesses the OTP

11     ultimately gave up on and they said that they would not base their

12     charges on his statements.

13             One witness claimed that he had been beaten up before arriving in

14     The Hague by perpetrators unknown and then it was established that he was

15     cleaning the snow somewhere and that he fell down some slippery steps.

16     The Victims and Witnesses Unit here recorded his conversations with

17     friends in Serbia.  He called them and asked them to provide information

18     to him stating that it was very dangerous for him there, that he was

19     under a threat, so that he could somehow make The Hague Tribunal take

20     care of him in a Western country, give him a job, a home, et cetera.  Of

21     course it's misery, poverty, that led him to do that kind of thing.

22             When there is poverty, moral scruples become weaker, at least

23     that's the case with most people but not all people.  There are poor

24     people who are ready to die but not sell out, not set out their virtue

25     and honesty.  There were people like that in The Hague as well, in

Page 107

 1     The Hague Tribunal.  Look at all the judgements that were passed on the

 2     basis of fabricated, trumped-up charges based on false witnesses.

 3     Starting with Milan Martic onwards.  Remember the Milosevic case,

 4     Mr. Kwon.  There were about 40 witnesses who denied the text of the

 5     preliminary statement they had given to the OTP.  And remember that there

 6     was this one witness who claimed that the Serb police tried to execute

 7     him from a 10-metre distance using a heavy machine-gun.  Four bullets

 8     were used and three grazed his shirt without hurting him.  How can you

 9     remain unharmed if your shirt has exit/entry wounds?  Slobodan Milosevic

10     said, How come?  And the witness said that God have saved him.  You must

11     remember that.  You probably laughed about the whole thing with your

12     colleagues later on because you couldn't laugh in court.

13             It happened in other cases as well and no one reacted.  Why was

14     no one held responsible until now for perjury?  Very soon I am going to

15     file criminal charges against all the false witnesses in my case.

16     Someone will have to be held accountable.  What about Timothy McFadden?

17     Why weren't criminal charges instituted against him on account of

18     contempt of court?  He disclosed to the American embassy information

19     about the private life of Slobodan Milosevic.

20             We don't know what WikiLeaks is going to leak out in the future.

21     I hope that they are going to provide lots of documents that have

22     something to do with me as well.  The warden of the prison is telling the

23     US embassy about Slobodan Milosevic's relations with his wife, with his

24     friends, with his political colleagues, his daily activities, and so on.

25     That is such a big time scandal that McFadden should have been in prison

Page 108

 1     straightaway.  He should have been punished.  I filed a criminal

 2     complaint with the president of the Tribunal but I haven't received any

 3     response yet.  It has been properly filed and translated into English.

 4     Why is the same yard-stick not applied to all?  Why should McFadden be

 5     protected?  Why should any Prosecutor from The Hague be protected?  Why

 6     should perhaps even a Judge from The Hague be protected?  While contempt

 7     proceedings are initiated against different journalists in most cases or

 8     people who refused to testify or in my very own case against an accused

 9     person.

10             Just imagine a court of law in any part of the world.  You all

11     come from different countries.  Imagine someone who has been charged with

12     the gravest possible crimes, mass murder, terrible war crimes, and crimes

13     against humanity.  Instead of having intensive proceedings underway in

14     court within a reasonable period of time, this person is charged in

15     contempt proceedings on account of books that he published.  You see how

16     grotesque all of this is?  That kind of grotesque thing cannot happen in

17     any one of your countries, but it is possible before The Hague Tribunal.

18     Because anything is possible here.

19             The Rules of Procedure and Evidence have been changed 45 times

20     and are being changed as proceedings are underway.  When is this going to

21     stop?  When is this illegality and irregularity going to stop?  Is it

22     going to stop before the Tribunal closes down?  Hardly.  This Tribunal is

23     going to be remembered in the history of International Law only by

24     violating elementary legal regulations and human rights and freedoms.  I

25     spoke exactly for half an hour.  I see that Mr. MacFarlane seems to be

Page 109

 1     getting jittery, but it was exactly half an hour because I'm careful.  I

 2     have thus concluded.  Thank you.

 3             JUDGE KWON:  In relation to the matter raised during the course

 4     of his Rule 84 bis statement, Mr. Seselj referred to the Chamber's

 5     original decision and not to indict, initiate the proceedings which was

 6     reversed later on by the Appeals Chamber.  If my memory is correct, the

 7     reason why the Chamber was not allowing the access of the accused to that

 8     material is since that was not part of the support material.  So it does

 9     not be categorised as a support material as the rule provides.  But

10     what -- do you have any observation on that issue?  Or put otherwise:  Is

11     there any reason for the accused not to have access to that decision as

12     well as the appeals decision?

13             Do you have that appeals decision, Mr. Seselj?

14             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have received a copy of the

15     decision of the Appeals Chamber, but I haven't received a copy of your

16     decision.

17             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, Mr. MacFarlane.

18             MR. MacFARLANE:  Thank you, Your Honours.  My recollection was

19     that a distinction was being drawn between evidence in its normal meaning

20     and legal reasoning.  And for that reason it was thought that it didn't

21     fall into a normal category that would lead to disclosure.  That's my

22     recollection of the basis.

23             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you, Mr. MacFarlane.

24                           [Trial Chamber confers]

25             JUDGE KWON:  At this moment the Chamber does not see any problem

Page 110

 1     in allowing the access to the accused -- of the accused to that decision

 2     of our Chamber.  You'll receive it.  So we lift the confidentiality

 3     ex parte nature of the document and order the Registry to provide the

 4     accused with a copy of that decision.

 5             Very well.  Let us continue with your presentation, Ms. Wanlin.

 6             MS. WANLIN:  Thank you, Your Honours.  I will ask to move into

 7     closed session, please.  Pardon me, private session.

 8             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, we go into private is session.

 9                           [Private session]

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 111











11 Page 111 redacted. Private session.















Page 112

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19                           [Open session]

20             THE REGISTRAR:  We are in public session, Your Honours.

21             MS. WANLIN:  Thank you.  The next point that I will address is:

22     When were the orders in effect.  And I would like to indicate that there

23     are two different types of orders that were in effect that we'll be

24     dealing with.  The first type are protective measures.  The second are

25     orders that came as a result of the filing policy where the accused's

Page 113

 1     submissions were subsequently ordered to be confidential.

 2             With respect to the first section, the start of the protective

 3     measures, I would like to turn to tab 23.  Tab 23 is a public document.

 4     It's a decision dated the 13th of March, 2003.  And this was the first

 5     decision that established an order for non-disclosure in the proceedings.

 6             This decision was then followed by another decision which can be

 7     found at tab 24.  And I will point out in this tab, if we look at page 4,

 8     paragraph 4, line 5, we will note the prohibition on publication of

 9     confidential information that relates to protected witnesses.  It also

10     then on page 5 states explicitly that breaches will be dealt with in

11     accordance with Rule 77.

12             There's three decisions that are relevant specifically to the

13     protected witnesses in these proceedings.  The first decision can be

14     found at tab 25.  I'd like to note that this decision is a public

15     decision.  For ease of reference, I will be referring to this decision

16     further on as the June 2005 decision.  If we turn to page 6 of this

17     decision, at paragraph 3 in particular, it sets out the protective

18     measures that are relevant to the witnesses in our proceedings.

19             JUDGE KWON:  Ms. Wanlin, why do you refer to it as

20     "June 2005 decision"?

21             MS. WANLIN:  I refer to it as the June 2005 because it was

22     actually -- it was submitted on the 27th but it was filed, if you look on

23     the first page, on June 1st.

24             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.

25             MS. WANLIN:  And so just for -- for -- to prevent confusion later

Page 114

 1     on.

 2             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, thank you.

 3             MS. WANLIN:  I'd like to now just point out that the specific

 4     details with regard to the protected witnesses in our case are set out as

 5     paragraph 13 of our pre-trial brief.  I can go into further detail if

 6     Your Honours would like but that would require going into closed session.

 7             JUDGE KWON:  We can proceed now.

 8             MS. WANLIN:  Okay.  Moving on to the next decision, I would like

 9     to turn to tab 27.  Tab 27 is a confidential decision.  I will refer to

10     this decision as the August 2007 decision.  And the relevant pages in

11     this decision in particular are at page 8 and page 9, tabs 1 -- pardon

12     me, paragraphs 1 to 4 -- sorry, 6, 7, 8, and then on page 9, 11.  These

13     have been marked in Your Honours' submissions [sic].

14             Again, this one, the specific relevance is outlined in detail on

15     paragraph 14 of our pre-trial brief.  The third decision relevant to

16     these proceedings is found at tab 29.  This decision, again, is a

17     confidential decision.  And I would like to point to pages 4 and 5 with

18     respect to two of the protected witnesses who are relevant to the

19     proceedings presently.  Again, paragraph 15 of our pre-trial brief has

20     further details on these.

21             Now I would like to -- I'm not sure if we our -- we're still on

22     the ELMO with Annex B.  If not, I would like to request my friend to put

23     Annex B.  I also would like to apologise for the small font which may not

24     make things easy, but the relevant point here is to illustrate visually

25     the time-lines that we're looking at.  You will note --

Page 115

 1             JUDGE KWON:  Just for practical purposes, the Judges were just

 2     handed over this --

 3             MS. WANLIN:  Yes, the Judges have that copy.

 4             JUDGE KWON:  I take it Mr. Seselj has one?

 5             MS. WANLIN:  He has that.

 6             JUDGE KWON:  So this -- when the -- it's -- so this is

 7     confidential material, there's no -- we do not have to broadcast this?

 8             MS. WANLIN:  No, this is also confidential, as I indicated

 9     earlier.

10             JUDGE KWON:  So there's no point of putting it on the ELMO

11     because --

12             MS. WANLIN:  Well, if everyone has it, this is correct.  Okay.

13             JUDGE KWON:  Go ahead.

14             MS. WANLIN:  In that case, then we can just refer to our copies.

15     It is a confidential document because it contains references to the names

16     of protected witnesses.  Simply I would just like to point out here we

17     can visually see the -- when the measures came into place in relation to

18     the date of publication established earlier.  And with regard to the

19     start date all of the protective measures were in place at the time that

20     the disclosure took place.

21             The next consideration we need to consider is whether or not the

22     protective measures ceased before the time of publication.  And this is

23     where I would point to the -- what can be considered to be a third

24     section of the Annex B.  And in this section we have identified each

25     individual witness, the start and end time of their respective protective

Page 116

 1     measures.  I would simply note that for many, the protective measures may

 2     have ended at the time of testimony.  However, returning to the point of

 3     publication, at the date of publication, there was only one order that

 4     had rescinded or varied the protective measures.

 5             I would like to turn to tab 31.  Tab 31 is a confidential

 6     decision with respect to one of the protected witnesses, and we will note

 7     that the order varies the protective measures.  However, it only refers

 8     to one aspect of the protective measures.  For the record, I would simply

 9     like to indicate that tab 24 is a public document.

10             It may be helpful for Chambers also to be -- for me to point out

11     that since the time of publication, that protective measures have varied

12     for some of the witnesses in question.  If we turn to tab 19, tab 19

13     which is a confidential transcript, and here we have one of the protected

14     witnesses who ultimately testified in open session.  However, up until

15     this point, which is the 10th of December, 2008, which is after the

16     publication, the protective measures were still in place.

17             The same thing can be said for another witness.  If we turn to

18     tab 20.  Tab 20 is a public transcript.  And, again, with respect to this

19     particular witness, as of March 9th they were a protected witness.  The

20     Chamber indicates that there will be voice and face distortion and there

21     will be no discussion on the protective measures adopted by the

22     Trial Chamber.  In effect, the protective measures for this particular

23     witness have not changed.

24             At tab 21 we have another witness who testified in open session.

25     Again, the date of this is in 2010, which is long after the publication.

Page 117

 1     Again, this tab 21 is a public transcript.

 2             Tab 22 refers again to a protected witness who in July 2010, if

 3     we look at the first page which is 16181, we note that the Judge is

 4     indicating that there -- they were granted protective measures.  And

 5     turning to the last page of that tab, at lines -- just in general there's

 6     a discussion and the witness testifies in open session.

 7             Finally, I would like to draw your attention to tab 32.  This is

 8     a confidential document.  And I will simply note, the Chamber would like

 9     to look at paragraph 2, where the Prosecution withdraws this particular

10     witness.  Therefore, in effect, at the time of this decision, protective

11     measures were -- had not changed.

12             The second element that I would like to refer to now are the

13     confidentiality orders which result from the filing policy established in

14     the main trial.  This filing policy, which is a public document, can be

15     found at tab 40.  And I would point to paragraph 8 on page, the first

16     paragraph, which establishes that where a submission reveals any name of

17     protected witnesses, the existence or content of confidential

18     information, that the CMSS will file it confidentially.

19             The accused has received a copy of this, yet he -- in many of his

20     submissions there are -- the same statements that are included in the

21     present book have been already determined to be confidential in earlier

22     submissions.  In particular, submissions 343, 359, 382, 386, and 394.

23             And at this point I would like to turn to Annex A, which is at

24     the front of your binders.  It may be on the flip side of Annex B.  This

25     annex endeavours to point out which specific submission has been deemed

Page 118

 1     confidential and which particular statement from that submission has been

 2     subsequently included in the book.

 3             I would like to turn to tab 42.  Tab 42 is a confidential

 4     document.  At page 19 through 24 of this document there is a statement of

 5     one of the protected witnesses in this proceeding.  This same statement

 6     can be found in confidential tab 55 F.

 7             I would like to turn to tab 43.  Tab 43 is a public document, and

 8     this the procès-verbal that indicates that the decision has been filed

 9     confidentially.

10             Turning to tab 44.  Tab 44 is a confidential document.  And at

11     pages 25 to 30, again, it's the same statement that we just looked at in

12     tab 42, and, again, we find this at tab 55 F of the translations of the

13     book.

14             Moving on to tab 46 which is submission, a confidential

15     submission, 382.  And pages 13 through 17 of this submission can also be

16     found in -- on tab 55 J in the translations of the book.  Incidentally,

17     it can also be found at tab 50, which is another confidential filing of

18     the accused.  The version found in tab 50 is at pages 95 through 97.  And

19     I would like to refer to tab 47, which is a public document, which is the

20     procès-verbal that has been filed confidentially.

21             I would now like to turn to tab 48.  Tab 48 is a confidential

22     document.  Pages 5 through 17 of this document contain the same statement

23     that can be found at tab 55 K in the translations of the book.

24             Turning to tab 49, which is a public procès-verbal of --

25     indicating that this submission had been filed confidentially.

Page 119

 1             JUDGE KWON:  Ms. Wanlin.

 2             MS. WANLIN:  Yes.

 3             JUDGE KWON:  When you say "same," do you mean both are identical?

 4             MS. WANLIN:  From -- if you compare both side by side, they are

 5     the same.  There might be possibly a difference in translation, but they

 6     are.  We have provided the original to the translation unit and they are

 7     the same.

 8             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.

 9             MS. WANLIN:  Now I'd like to return for a moment to look at

10     Annex B.  Again, the relevance of these submissions is that they were all

11     determined to be confidential before that line, before that time-line,

12     the date of publication.  I will refer to a final submission.  However,

13     what's different with this one is that he -- the accused did not receive

14     a procès-verbal until after the date of publication.  However, it is

15     relevant because it does help to establish the knowledge of protective

16     measures.

17             I can go on to set out all of the information included in Annex A

18     if it pleases Your Honours, or I can move on to the next point of our

19     submission, if you would --

20             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, please.

21             MS. WANLIN:  Yes.  Thank you.

22             In our pre-trial brief, we included a third annex which

23     indicates the information that was disclosed for each particular

24     witness.

25             If I can ask for the assistance of my friend to -- I was not able

Page 120

 1     to get these into the folders.  Or we can -- this might be a bit

 2     difficult to look at on the ELMO system, so perhaps if we could

 3     distribute them.

 4             JUDGE KWON:  Mr. Seselj, these copies are provided just for the

 5     purpose of convenience.  They were tendered -- provided to you in the

 6     language you understand, so it's up to you whether or not you use it in

 7     the courtroom.

 8             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Kwon, you know that the usual

 9     practice in all cases is that the Prosecution provides a set of all the

10     exhibits that they wish to use in the courtroom on that day.  They had to

11     provide me with the same things that they provided to you.  Since they

12     have not done that, I am simply in a position to mediate and not even

13     listen what the lady is saying.  And I'm not even complaining about it.

14             JUDGE KWON:  Well, we'll proceed, Ms. Wanlin.

15             MS. WANLIN:  Thank you, Your Honour.  I would simply like to

16     point out, however, that in the binder there are several documents that

17     we will be coming up to that will be in -- that are in B/C/S and that

18     have the relevant translations.

19             JUDGE KWON:  Could you kindly turn off your mike.

20             MS. WANLIN:  So in an effort to try and keep in open session as

21     much as possible, what I will be doing is simply referring in the

22     sequence set out in this document and indicating, if it pleases

23     Your Honours, the type of information that was disclosed in referring to

24     the relevant tabs.

25             The first line I would like to turn to, tab 55 J.  55 J is a

Page 121

 1     confidential translation.  What I would like to point out globally for

 2     this section, that each of these are statements that have been given.

 3     And the common pattern that can be found in each of them is that at the

 4     very beginning of each statement there will be a number of details about

 5     each protected witness that is disclosed right at the outset.  So that is

 6     typically on the first page.

 7             With respect to this first protected witness, the full name, the

 8     date of birth, the place of birth, the address, place of residence, the

 9     ID number of the card, the unique master citizen number, the ethnicity,

10     religion, relevant medical issues, details about being a witness for the

11     Prosecution and details about a statement or interview with the

12     Prosecution have been included in this statement.  In addition, we would

13     like to point out that details about the father, the wife's identifying

14     details, and sister-in-law, so members of this protected witness's family

15     have also been disclosed in this statement.

16             The next relevant statement can be found at tab 55 O, which,

17     again, is a confidential document.  Again I would point to the first

18     section of the translation.  Here we can find the full name, a nickname,

19     date and place of birth, address, number of the ID card, as well as,

20     later on, in the statement there is information about the occupation and

21     details about being -- either a interview or statement with the

22     Prosecution.

23             The next protected witness translation of the statement can be

24     found at tab 55 N, which is a confidential document.  With respect to

25     this protected witness, the full name, the address, the number of the

Page 122

 1     ID card, and details about being a Prosecution witness or providing a

 2     statement are included.

 3             With respect to the fourth protected witness, I will refer to two

 4     tabs, in fact: tab 55D and tab 55 E, both of which are confidential

 5     documents.  The full name, date and place of birth, address, number of

 6     the ID card, a unique citizen or master citizen number, education,

 7     occupation, details about involvement with the Office of the Prosecutor,

 8     and a statement are included with respect to this protected witness.

 9             I would like to now turn to tab 55 K, 55 L, with respect to the

10     fifth witness, fifth protected witness.  And, again, these are

11     confidential documents which reveal the full name, date and place of

12     birth, address, ID -- or number of the ID card, unique master citizen

13     number, occupation, ethnicity, religion, and details of their involvement

14     with the Office of the Prosecutor.  Also important to note with respect

15     to -- to this protected witness, the father's name, the country where

16     they took asylum, and new names for him and his wife are also referred

17     to, which are factors which help to pin-point, once again, this protected

18     witness.

19             Moving to the next protected witness, I would draw your attention

20     to the tab 55 M, which is a confidential translation.  The full name,

21     date of birth, place of birth, the address, the number of the ID card,

22     unique master citizen number, and the occupation are revealed with

23     respect to this protected witness.

24             Turning to the next protected witness, the confidential

25     translation can be found at tab 55 Q, where the full name, address, place

Page 123

 1     of residence, number of ID card, and education, and involvement with the

 2     Office of the Prosecutor are identified.

 3             The next details can be found at tab 55 H, confidential

 4     translation from the book, where the full name, the nickname, address,

 5     number of the ID card, education, occupation, ethnicity, religion,

 6     pertinent medical issues, and details about their involvement with the

 7     Office of the Prosecutor are set out.  In addition, there's information

 8     about the family of this protected witness, details about marital status,

 9     uncles', sons', and mother's name and the name of his son's girlfriend,

10     all of which, again, help to narrow the particular person that is being

11     referred to.

12             The next protected witness has a statement at tab 55 F, as well

13     as 55 G.  The full name, date of birth, place of birth, address, number

14     of the ID card, unique master citizen number, education, occupation,

15     details about involvement with the Office of the Prosecutor can be found

16     in this statement.

17             The next protected witness has two statements again, found at

18     tab 55 B and C respectively.  These are confidential statements.  And in

19     these, the full name, date of birth, place of birth, address, and the

20     number of the ID card and unique master citizen number are revealed.

21             And finally, moving to the last of the 11 protected witness, we

22     can turn to tab 55 P, where the full name, address, place of residence,

23     number of the ID card, education, and occupation are revealed.

24             So we've covered whether or not there was a disclosure.  We've

25     covered if there were protective measures that were in place.  I would

Page 124

 1     now like to turn to whether or not the accused had knowledge of the

 2     protective measures at the time of the disclosure.  There are several

 3     exhibits that I will be referring to.  The first is at tab 33, which is a

 4     confidential submission.

 5             Now, this is a first of a series of submissions which indicate

 6     that the accused knew that where protective measures were in place he had

 7     to seek an order to vary those protective measures.  Tab 33, which is, as

 8     I mentioned, confidential, simply if we look on page 2, the very

 9     introductory paragraph provides information about the knowledge of the

10     protective measures that were in effect at the time.

11             The next two documents, pardon me, that I will refer to are

12     decisions where the accused sought to appeal the protective measures.

13     The first is at tab 34.  Tab 34 is a public document.  And the motion was

14     denied, which means that the protective measures remained in effect.  The

15     accused received that decision at tab 36.  There's a procès-verbal which

16     establishes that the accused received that decision on the

17     23rd of January, 2008.

18             Moving to --

19             JUDGE KWON:  Tab 35.

20             MS. WANLIN:  Pardon me, you are correct.  Thank you.

21             Tab 36, there's another public decision, once again, where the

22     accused had sought to vary the protective measures.  Again it was denied.

23     And the procès-verbal relevant to that can be found at tab 37.

24             At tab 38, which is a public document, we have a submission by

25     the accused seeking to have protective measures again which go to the

Page 125

 1     knowledge of protective measures.  And finally, the procès-verbal for

 2     that is at tab 39.

 3             All of this to say that he had -- the accused had knowledge of

 4     the protective decisions because he signed the procès-verbal

 5     acknowledging receipt of these decisions.  And those procès-verbal can be

 6     found at tabs 26, tabs 28, and tab 30, which are all public documents.

 7             I would now like to turn to the very beginning of your binder, at

 8     tabs 1 and 2.

 9             JUDGE KWON:  Ms. Wanlin, I note the time.  If it is convenient,

10     shall we take a break, or ...

11             MS. WANLIN:  If it pleases Your Court, yes.

12             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.  We'll have a break for half an hour and resume

13     at quarter to 1.00.

14                           --- Recess taken at 12.16 p.m.

15                           --- On resuming at 12.50 p.m.

16             JUDGE KWON:  Please continue, Ms. Wanlin.

17             MS. WANLIN:  Thank you, Your Honours.  So I will continue where I

18     left off, which was explaining that the accused was present in court when

19     protective measures were discussed.  We can turn to Exhibits 1 and 2.

20     And both of these are transcripts from public session.  I don't have a

21     pin-point specifically, but just generally we can note that at tab 1

22     there's discussion of protective measures, and, again, at tab 2 there are

23     more references to protective measures, in particular in tab 2 at page

24     1784 and again at page 1787.

25             Further, the accused has referred to the decisions and their

Page 126

 1     effects in his own submissions, as I had referred to earlier, Exhibit 38,

 2     at pages 3 and 4.  Also, as I had mentioned earlier, with reference to

 3     the Annex A in the submission found at tab 50.  Now, this submission was

 4     drafted and filed in the weeks leading up to the publication of the book.

 5     It contains several statements by the protected witnesses relevant to our

 6     case.  And in this decision the accused refers to the existence of the

 7     protective measures which again supports the question of knowledge.

 8             I would like to turn now to Exhibit 4.

 9             For the record, I would further -- first like to note that

10     submission -- or tab 50, pardon me, is a confidential submission.

11             Turning to tab 4, which is a public transcript.  And in the

12     middle of this page, the question of publishing confidential material

13     related to protected witnesses is specifically referred to by the

14     Trial Chamber.  I would look at lines 19 through 21.  It's a public

15     document and so I will read them out:

16             "As you know, like everyone here, the statements of protected

17     witnesses are by definition also protected, and it is absolutely banned

18     to publish outside this legal arena these kind of statements.  Maybe I

19     misunderstood you and I would like to be assured as to what you intend to

20     do."

21             This is an explicit warning.

22             Again as referred to earlier, in -- when we were looking at

23     Annex 8 with respect to these submission, knowledge came when the accused

24     signed several of the procès-verbal related to these documents.  I will

25     simply point out, Exhibits 42 through 49 will go to knowledge.

Page 127

 1             Next I would turn to Exhibit 11.  Exhibit 11 is from private

 2     session, so it's a confidential document.  And in this he refers, at

 3     lines 14 and onward, to one of the submissions that we have also referred

 4     to in Annex A, which indicates that he is aware that it has been

 5     classified as confidential.

 6             As I'd mentioned earlier, the accused had knowledge of the filing

 7     policy that resulted in the reclassification of his submissions which he

 8     had filed publicly.  Exhibit 3.  At the top of the page of this

 9     confidential transcript, the filing policy is discussed in the main

10     trial.  And the filing policy and the procès-verbal that goes with it can

11     be found at Exhibits 40 and 41.  Exhibits 40 and 41 are both public

12     documents.

13             That gives the general overview of the relevance of the exhibits

14     to the elements of the offence.  I would now like to turn to elements

15     that are relevant to -- specifically for sentencing, specifically the

16     scope and the aggravating circumstances.  However, to do so, I would like

17     to go into closed session, please.

18             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, we'll go into private session.

19             MS. WANLIN:  Private session, pardon me.

20             JUDGE KWON:  It doesn't matter.

21                           [Private session]

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 128











11 Pages 128-132 redacted. Private session.
















Page 133

 1   (redacted)

 2                           [Open session]

 3             THE REGISTRAR:  We are in open session, Your Honours.

 4             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.

 5             Ms. Wanlin, you've concluded your case?

 6             MS. WANLIN:  Yes, I have.  Thank you.

 7             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.

 8             Mr. Seselj, it's now for you to present your case.  Are you

 9     minded to make an opening statement at this time pursuant to Rule 84?

10             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes.  I do wish to make an opening

11     statement, but I'm not able to do so now.  I insist that the

12     Trial Chamber order the Registrar to allow me at least a single visit by

13     my Legal Advisor Dan Milovic, MA in law, and Case Manager Nemanja

14     Sarovic.  I need to confer with them and consider my Defence strategy.  I

15     also need to be allowed to conduct preliminary interviews what all of my

16     future witnesses so that I can proof them.  Once I'm done doing that, I

17     will be able to make an opening argument.  If I'm not given a chance to

18     confer with my Legal Advisor and my Case Manager, if I'm not given a

19     chance to interview my witnesses, then any opening statement that I may

20     make would hardly make any sense at all.  We might as well move on

21     straight to our closing arguments in that case.

22             As for my opening statement, I would present from the

23     [indiscernible] guide-lines of a witness testimony in my Defence case.  I

24     would point out the substance of their evidence.  I would underline what

25     is essential, unlike the OTP who have been presenting facts here today.

Page 134

 1     They spent the entire day presenting facts that I've never challenged.

 2     Some witnesses were protected witnesses, rulings were made cornering

 3     protective measures.  I've tried to challenge some of those rulings in

 4     relation to protective measures and my motion was thrown out, and so on

 5     and so forth.  There's nothing disputable about that.  What is, however,

 6     disputable and open to challenge is the main theory of the OTP, namely,

 7     they suggest that I published the identities of certain protected

 8     witnesses.  That is not true and I can prove that that is not true.  I

 9     have proof indicating that those witnesses themselves made their

10     identities public.  They agreed for the statements which they provided to

11     the Defence to be published.

12             The basic question is:  Does a protected witness enjoy the right

13     to himself publish his identity and who can deny him that right?  The

14     Trial Chamber makes a ruling concerning protective measures in order to

15     protect a certain witness and not an order to violate his rights.

16             JUDGE KWON:  Mr. Seselj, you are not making an opening statement

17     at this moment.  What I can emphasise again is this:  The matters related

18     to the financing for the Defence are within the primary responsibility of

19     the Registrar.  There are procedures you have to follow in order to get

20     that assistance.  In the meantime, I hope the Appeals Chamber decision

21     would resolve all the issues.

22             On a practical matter, if we are to hear any evidence from the

23     Defence witnesses, the only available date for the Chamber seems to be

24     sometime at the end of May or in the beginning of June.

25             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This year or next year?  Is it this

Page 135

 1     year you are talking about or next year?

 2             JUDGE KWON:  That was a good one, Mr. Seselj.

 3             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Everything I say is good.  Whatever

 4     I say goes down in the history of international legal science.  If you

 5     were trying to intimidate me in this way and get me to give up my Defence

 6     altogether, then you have mis-assessed the situation.  I will stick to my

 7     procedural rights.  As far as I know, this might go on for another ten

 8     years, the trial that we are in the middle of right now.  And the other

 9     trial might take another 20.

10                           [Trial Chamber confers]

11             JUDGE KWON:  Next date for trial will be announced in due course

12     to the parties.  The hearing is now adjourned.

13                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.16 p.m.

14                           sine die.